7THIS IS WHAT he showed me: The Lord was standing by a wall that had been built true to plumb, with a plumb line in his hand. 8And the LORD asked me, “What do you see, Amos?”
“A plumb line,” I replied.
Then the Lord said, “Look, I am setting a plumb line among my people Israel; I will spare them no longer.
9“The high places of Isaac will be destroyed
and the sanctuaries of Israel will be ruined;
with my sword I will rise against the house of Jeroboam.”
10Then Amaziah the priest of Bethel sent a message to Jeroboam king of Israel: “Amos is raising a conspiracy against you in the very heart of Israel. The land cannot bear all his words. 11For this is what Amos is saying:
“ ‘Jeroboam will die by the sword,
and Israel will surely go into exile,
away from their native land.’ ”
12Then Amaziah said to Amos, “Get out, you seer! Go back to the land of Judah. Earn your bread there and do your prophesying there. 13Don’t prophesy anymore at Bethel, because this is the king’s sanctuary and the temple of the kingdom.”
14Amos answered Amaziah, “I was neither a prophet nor a prophet’s son, but I was a shepherd, and I also took care of sycamore-fig trees. 15But the LORD took me from tending the flock and said to me, ‘Go, prophesy to my people Israel.’ 16Now then, hear the word of the LORD. You say,
“ ‘Do not prophesy against Israel,
and stop preaching against the house of Isaac.’
17“Therefore this is what the LORD says:
“ ‘Your wife will become a prostitute in the city,
and your sons and daughters will fall by the sword.
Your land will be measured and divided up,
and you yourself will die in a pagan country.
And Israel will certainly go into exile,
away from their native land.’ ”
Original Meaning
THIS SECTION IS divided into two subparagraphs: the plumb line vision of destruction for the king and the temple in Bethel (7:7–9), and the conflict over this vision of destruction (7:10–17). The structure of the vision is different from the two visions in 7:1–3 and 7:4–6, and also different from the confrontation in 7:10–17. This third vision is parallel in structure to the fourth vision in 8:1–3 (making them a pair like the first two visions). Both visions have appendixes added to them (7:10–17 and 8:4–14) and identical clauses that demonstrate a parallelism between them.1 Although these visions are paired, each one and its appendix will be treated separately because of its length and unique characteristics.
The structure of the third and fourth visions includes (1) an introductory formula, (2) a description of the vision, beginning with “behold” (hinneh, not trans. in NIV), (3) a dialogue between God and Amos in the vision, and (4) an explanation of the vision. There is no prophetic intercession or divine answer to the prophet’s prayer in these visions. The first vision is held together by related themes and the word ʾnk, “plumb line, plumb, tin,” and is connected to its pair in 8:1–3 by the repeated phrase, “I will spare them no longer.”
The autobiographical disputational conflict in 7:10–17 is closely tied to the vision in 7:7–9 through the partial repetition of similar phrases from 7:9 in 7:11. This disputation can be divided into two parts according to the main speakers and theme. Amos 7:10–13 describes Amaziah’s rejection of God’s word and of Amos’s calling to preach in the northern nation of Israel, while 7:14–17 is Amos’s confirmation of his calling from God to prophesy in Israel and a confirmation of God’s word. The worldviews of Amos and Amaziah are completely in conflict, and both try to persuade the other of the authoritative value of their perspective.
The absence of a conclusion that resolves the tension suggests that neither person accepts the argument of the other. It may appear that Amos’s prophetic career is over at this time because of Amaziah’s authoritative statements, but Amaziah’s authority probably only relates to the temple area, not the rest of the city of Bethel or the rest of the nation of Israel (that is why he has to send a letter to King Jeroboam II). The total rejection of God’s word in this conflict may partially explain why God “will spare them no longer” and why the prophet does not try to intercede in the third and fourth visions.
Vision of the Plumb Line (7:7–9)
THE INTRODUCTORY CLAUSE, “This is what the Lord showed me,” demonstrates that the prophet receives another vision from God, in which Amos sees God “standing” (nṣb) beside a wall (presumably a large city wall of an important place), holding something. In this initial description of the vision (7:7) the word ʾanak is used twice—once modifying the wall and once specifying what God has in his hand.
Since this is the only time this word is found in the Bible, there is some guesswork involved in defining it. Landsberger and Holladay believe the comparable Akkadian term annaku refers to “tin” rather than lead or a plumb line.2 Some commentators change the word to ʾeben (stone) to make better sense, drop this word as a dittography with the next line, or suggest the word refers to a metal instrument like a pickax that might be used to destroy a wall.3 Those who prefer the interpretation “tin” see it as a metal of weakness showing that Israel is extremely weak, while others admit that the imagery makes no sense but must symbolize a metal of strength and be comparable to the “bronze wall” in Jeremiah 1:18; 15:20.4 Given the primitive metallurgical methods at that time, this metal may not have been pure tin and much closer to lead,5 but the decisive issue is the use of this lead/tin in the vision.
In spite of all the difficulties left, the traditional interpretation that this is lead used to plumb a wall makes the most sense. Just as a builder tests the straightness of a wall with a plumb line, God exposes the true state of his people’s moral character and covenant faithfulness with his plumb line. In the earlier visions guilt is implied, but this testing procedure legitimates the conclusion that it is no longer possible to delay the judgment of Israel.
The dialogue in 7:8 begins to point toward the meaning of this symbolism. God will put this plumb line6 in the midst of Israel, and because of that action he has decided to spare “my people Israel” no longer. Those closely connected to God through a covenant relationship, whom God loved and chose to be his special people (Deut. 7:1–7), will not be pardoned again. God’s patience has been exhausted; he will not “spare” or “pass over” their sins any longer but “will pass through [their] midst” (Amos 5:17); his punishment will not be delayed.
The final part of the vision (7:9) explains specifically what this symbolism means to the audience Amos addresses. The application is surprisingly specific: God will destroy both the religious places of false worship and the dynasty of the king of Israel. Both the local high places and the state temple at Bethel will end up in a heap of ruins. Surprisingly, perhaps, there is no specific condemnation of pagan gods or illegitimate worship at these places.
The prophet Hosea spent a great deal of his ministry describing and condemning the open-air sanctuaries with their wood-carved poles and stone pillars, but Amos’s method of delegitimating these places of worship is very different. He tries to persuade people to believe that God can and will take away their two great social institutions that control and order much of their social life. Without any place of worship, how will they relate to the divine powers? Without any king, how will they preserve order and maintain their secure and prosperous lifestyle? Without the powerful house of Jeroboam II, the nation will come to nothing.
The means by which God will accomplish this is not stated. Elsewhere God mentioned an army (3:11–12; 6:14), the destruction of the walls and cities (4:3; 6:11), and going into exile (5:27; 7:17), but here the focus is on God himself as the force bringing about the tragic destruction of his own beloved people. The vision abruptly ends without any prayer of intercession or any message of hope for Amos’s audience. Will this vision persuade them to change their perception of the future, or will they stubbornly reject God’s words through Amos?
Conflict over God’s Words (7:10–17)
AN AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL NARRATIVE that records a disputation between the priest Amaziah and Amos develops as a direct reaction to Amos’s third vision. There is nothing in this brief encounter that enables the interpreter to specify an exact date or occasion.7 The incident focuses on two factors: (1) the authority of Amos’s vision about the future destruction of Israel’s temples and ruling family, and (2) the nature of Amos’s prophetic calling. Amos and Amaziah have conflicting points of view on both issues and dispute the validity of Amos’s words from the Lord.
Amaziah’s authoritative tone and strong statements suggest that he is the high priest at the Bethel temple. He seems to be an important government official with the power to regulate and supervise what happens at this sanctuary and to protect it from foreign ideologies that might undermine its state-approved religious activities. Amaziah’s strong accusations (7:10–13) that Amos’s words are a “conspiracy” (qšr, falsehood, treasonous act) suggest an organized plot to overthrow the government. This would be considered rebellion, sedition, or subversion by those in authority. No wonder Amaziah thinks the land cannot possibly allow him to speak like this in Israel (7:10). As a loyal political appointee and protector of the status quo of that culture, Amaziah communicates his concern over Amos’s words to King Jeroboam II.
His quotation of Amos (7:11) is not exact. He slightly changes the prophet’s warning about the end of the “house of Jeroboam” (7:9) into a direct attack on Jeroboam II himself, then adds the idea about going into exile, and omits any reference to the destruction of the temple. It seems odd that the priest does not mention the destruction of the temple. Possibly Amaziah wants Amos to appear like a political threat and not just a diverse theological opinion that the king might be willing to tolerate. Amaziah seems to reinvent Amos as a dangerous dissident who might stir up support from the poor people of the land or political rivals of the king. His hyperbole is a fear tactic to quiet any opposition to the king and himself. Finally, Amaziah significantly omits anything about what “God” is going to do to Israel or that these are the “words of God.” Yes, Amaziah rejects Amos, but more important, he rejects what God says. Amos would not be rejected as a traitor if it were not for the message of God that he has spoken.
Amaziah’s solution to his and Amos’s conflict is for them to separate peaceably. Amos should just back off and return to Judah before he causes any more problems. Amaziah tells Amos what he should do (go home in v. 12) and what he should not do (continue to prophesy in the Bethel temple in v. 13). In his words he designates Amos as filling the social role of a “seer.” Some conclude that “seer” is not a derogatory term8 and is chosen simply because Amos is reporting visions he has seen (see 7:1–9; also 1:1). Others believe it has a negative connotation because it describes someone who is prophesying for money, while a third group thinks it is just a technical term for a southern prophet from Judah.9
One would expect Amaziah to have a negative view of Amos, so he probably does not use a neutral term in describing a traitor. Amaziah’s threat to Amos requires him to flee back to Judah, suggesting a quick movement away from potential persecution. The motivation that Amaziah provides to encourage a positive response is that Amos can make money in Judah. This comment imputes negative financial goals (he is a professional prophet who wants to get rich off the people of Israel with his wild prophecies) as Amos’s primary reason for prophesying. Finally, Amaziah legitimates his own authority by stating that this is a state temple that is controlled by the king; thus, he has the power to deny permission for anyone to make negative political statements about the king in the temple area.
Although this confrontation probably ends Amos’s preaching in the Bethel temple, there is no statement about regulating his activities outside the temple. It is interesting to observe that in all of Amaziah’s objections, he never claims that Amos is not a prophet or that he has not received a word from God. He just rejects the message and the messenger.
Amos’s response to Amaziah’s threats (7:14–17) includes a confirmation of his calling (vv. 14–15) and a confirmation of the words of the Lord that exile is coming to Israel (vv. 16–17). Contrary to Amaziah’s suggestion, Amos claims that he is not a professional prophet or the son of a professional prophet who is in business to get rich in Israel. Commentators have struggled over the translation and meaning of verse 14. Since Amos was sent to prophesy, his statement that he is not a prophet (7:14) can make sense only if nbyʾ (prophet) is interpreted to mean a professional prophet who makes his living by being paid for prophesying.10 Some prefer to take another alternative, suggesting the negative in verse 14 is an absolute negation and thus translate the phrase “No, I am a prophet, I am the son of a prophet.”11
Since there is an emphasis on how Amos makes his money in Amaziah’s critique (7:12) and in Amos’s reply (7:14), the first option fits the context better.12 Amos makes his living by employment in the sheep business and by caring for fig-bearing sycamore trees. He is not prophesying to get rich, so that is not a legitimate issue to raise to try and get rid of him. The exact nature of Amos’s work with the fig trees is unclear because the Hebrew word bls is found only here in the Hebrew Bible. Since some figs had to be slit open to give them a sweeter taste, Amos may have been occupied with this task, but Wright’s investigation has shown that some Egyptian and Palestinian figs did not need this operation.13
Although no entirely satisfactory solution exists for this problem, the main point is still evident. Amos makes his living by secular employment and is not motivated to come to Israel to prophesy for money. The motivation for his prophecies is the call of God that has instructed him to prophesy in Israel (7:15). He is under divine compulsion to do what Amaziah says he may not do. Amaziah is in rebellion against God’s plan and opposes God’s power. His command to Amos is a conspiracy against the divine command and God’s obedient servant. Amaziah’s rejection of both the message and the messenger of God puts him in opposition to God.
Amos demonstrates this by contrasting what God says to him (“Go, prophesy to my people Israel,” 7:15) and what Amaziah says to him (“Do not prophesy against [in] Israel” in 7:16). Like Amaziah’s quote of Amos earlier (7:11), Amos does not exactly quote what Amaziah has said in 7:12–13. This juxtaposition of Amaziah against God demonstrates the true nature of the conflict described in these verses. This is not just an argument about where Amos can speak; this is a spiritual battle about accepting the message of the Lord or rejecting it.
This conflict demonstrates Amaziah’s guilt before God and his unworthiness to be the spiritual priestly leader of the nation of Israel. Such action justifies God’s judgment on Amaziah and shows the bankruptcy of the religious beliefs and practices promulgated at the temple at Bethel. If the priest rebels against the words of God, there is little chance that the people worshiping at the temple will listen to what God has said. No wonder the third and fourth visions include the hopeless formula “I will spare them no longer” (7:8; 8:2).
God’s decision is to bring five curses on Amaziah and the nation of Israel (7:17):
• His wife will become a prostitute (cf. the curse in Deut. 28:30).
• His children will be killed (see the curses in Deut. 28:32, 41; 32:25).
• His personal property will be given to others (see Deut. 28:30; also Lev. 26:32).
• He will die in a pagan land (see Lev. 26:38–39).14
• The nation will go into exile, as Amos earlier announced (Amos 5:27; 7:11).
These may seem severe at first and particularly focused on the priest, but a religious leader like Amaziah is God’s representative to the congregation that gathers each Sabbath. He is to teach what God says to the people who come to sacrifice and sing his praises at the temple. How can he intercede for them if he rejects what God says?
Bridging Contexts
THESE TWO SECTIONS are related to specific people and situations in the northern nation of Israel; thus, the modern interpreter must be careful not to suggest that the exact same results will fall on any church group today. It is necessary to look behind the individuals in the vision and biographical story of conflict to determine if there are broader issues or principles presented within these texts. Thus, it is not appropriate for spiritual leaders to announce to people who will not listen to them (cf. what Amos does here) that “God will spare you no longer.”
This sorrowful consequence is always true at some point just before God’s judgment falls, but most of the time spiritual leaders do not know the exact timing of that judgment. It is tempting for leaders to be too impatient with people they dislike and too easy to allow personal feelings to interfere with God’s will for each person’s life. Like Amos, all people in leadership positions have a responsibility to humbly discipline the flock in love (Matt. 18:15–17), but they should primarily be concerned with making God’s people aware of their sin and bringing restoration where this is possible.
Church discipline. In the area of church discipline there are two extremes in the church today. (1) Some churches have a limited theological backbone and fail to stand up against diverse opinions or heretical behavior, even when these run directly contrary to explicit statements in the Bible. They want to be loving and inclusive, to reach out to people who are searching and struggling to find truth in their own way. Accepting people as they are is a central part of their approach, and they are committed to an individual’s right to construct one’s theology without harassment from others. They recognize that everyone is on a journey and that people are to be loved and accepted even though they are at different places in their own quest.
(2) By contrast, other churches have very strict standards of conduct and dress and require everyone to accept a fine-tuned set of beliefs. They are confrontational in weeding out heresy and limit a person’s individual freedom to have alternate opinions on minor issues that are not clear in the biblical text. Acceptance is given to those who submit to these standards, and even the slightest deviations are excluded. Responsibility and truth are stressed rather than freedom and struggling on a person’s personal journey. Discipline for mistaken behavior or beliefs can be swift and strict.
I have seen firsthand the tragedy this latter approach can bring because our family purchased a rural home from members of a conservative Mennonite group that had shunned a family and driven them from the community after the father worked at a secular job off the farm. This is not that far from the Montanists of earlier church history, who “practiced hyper-rigorist ecclesial discipline on the extreme assumption that the church is actually within history a purified and holy community not solely by grace but in actual behavioral practice.”15
Neither of the above-mentioned alternatives is satisfactory, and many churches try to avoid these extremes. Nevertheless, because of a fear of lawsuits and the desire to increase the size of churches, there is a growing hesitancy, even among those who call themselves conservatives, evangelicals, or orthodox, to practice church discipline. Sometimes this even extends to a hesitancy to discipline pastoral leaders or board members. Amos stands out as a person of boldness, who speaks strongly about the issue of confronting leaders of spiritual institutions who do not accept the teachings of the Bible.
Although the news media has played up examples of sexual failures by ministers, Amos is more concerned with the core spiritual issue of submission to God’s revelation. This is the central criteria that all churches and all church members should hold up as their standard. If a spiritual leader (or, for that matter, any person in the church) rejects God’s will and denies his power to correct and guide through the divine revelation of his will, that person should be strongly confronted, gently exhorted, and persuaded to change his or her view. After repeated refusals to change, strong confrontations must follow. Note how the apostle Paul encouraged the Christians in Corinth to remove the arrogant man who was unwilling to end an immoral relationship with his father’s wife (1 Cor. 5:5), warned Timothy not to accept Alexander the metalworker because he opposed Paul’s teaching (2 Tim. 4:14–16), and delivered the blasphemers Hymenaeus and Alexander over to Satan (1 Tim. 1:19–20).
Amos’s confrontation with Amaziah and his unbending prediction of the fall of Israel and the Bethel temple suggest that there is a place for bold confrontation of unbelief when all other avenues of persuasion are rejected. Christians do have a responsibility to warn those who repeatedly reject all loving warnings and consistently ignore all faithful witnesses to the truth in Scripture. They need to know what God has said, what action God will take, why God will act this way, and what they have done wrong.
Contemporary Significance
I WILL DEVELOP two applications out of these principles. One relates to how churches should deal with situations of conflict where a leader (like the priest Amaziah) is unwilling to accept biblical teachings, and the other relates to how a Christian should understand and react to opposition or persecution. This passage is not a complete primer on facing opposition or a well-organized pastoral letter on how churches should handle conflict situations, but it does raise practical questions that we should process before a crisis breaks out.
How should churches deal with leaders who reject God’s Word? It is inappropriate to develop a full range of suggestions on how to handle all kinds of conflicts in the church from this passage. It specifically deals with a spiritual leader, the high priest Amaziah, who rejects God’s negative words of judgment about the destruction of the Bethel temple, the end of Jeroboam’s dynasty, and the exile of Judah (Amos 7:9–13). It is also inappropriate to draw a direct analogy between the destruction of the Bethel temple and the end of the church in some country, or to compare the coming exile of Israel with the modern exile of some nation.
This passage does, however, support several theological principles that can be applied to situations in the life of the church today. (1) Godly leaders and spiritually minded laypeople, like Amos, must boldly address issues where God’s people (and the leaders that guide them) do not measure up to God’s standards and warn them of God’s future judgment of such action (see Amos 7:7–9). (2) In prayerfully evaluating the legitimacy of acts and beliefs of leaders, the key criteria is: Do these people accept what God says, and do they submit to it? (3) Those who reject the Spirit’s convicting power should be warned (cf. Amos’s earlier prophecies and Matt. 18:15–18). If they are unwilling to change, they should be boldly condemned and not given approval for positions of leadership in the church. Since leaders carry a greater responsibility for directing God’s people, they will be judged more severely if they fail to listen to what God says (cf. James 3:1).
Many have recognized that the church’s failure to institute these basic principles of church discipline has led to serious problems. E. Brunner sadly concluded that the “absence of any kind of church discipline inevitably gives the impression that to belong or not to belong to the church comes to the same thing in the end, and makes no difference in practical life.”16 Thus, church “discipline that takes sin seriously is almost extinct.”17 Like the plumb line in the Lord’s hand that evaluates the straightness of Israel’s walls, churches need not only to have a theological statement of their beliefs in their constitution in order to evaluate teachings that are excluded, but also biblical teaching and doctrinal preaching that explains and justifies these core beliefs.
In this modern era, where it has become accepted dogma for pastors and teachers to focus on the practical places where people itch, there is too little knowledge of the church’s theological foundations. Thus, it is not surprising that strange ideas often pop up or that people import a great deal of their secular cultural values into forming theological opinions. As a result, the first practical thing churches can do to prevent the need for church discipline is to teach theology, to provide a theological framework for people so that they themselves will be able to evaluate error and reject it. If no criteria of theological orthodoxy are taught or known by a congregation, how can people spot unbiblical ideas? This process of preparing for and teaching the congregation will keep church leaders from straying from the truth and needing church discipline.
In this process of establishing a standard for a congregation or a minister in a denomination, focus should be on the essentials of faith rather than on issues where there are legitimate differences of opinion over unclear passages. The key criterion for membership in a group is that each person agrees that the foundation doctrines of the church reflect the teaching of the Bible and that they will guide their thinking and behavior. Acceptance of what God says is of central importance, not acceptance of a catechism or creedal statement.
This is not to say that man-made creeds are bad or that they should not be used; it is merely an attempt to keep the focus on what God says in Scripture. It is one thing for pastors to fudge on the exact wording or meaning of a denomination’s doctrinal formulation, but it is unacceptable if a church leader will not accept what God has said in his revelation. A heart unsubmissive to God’s will has put itself above God and should not be entrusted with leadership. The process of discipline can be a positive experience if there is a spirit of humility that considers others highly, an attitude of gentleness and patience, a spirit of love and unity (see Phil. 2:1–11), and a desire to submit to God’s will.
In situations where discipline is necessary, the New Testament provides guidelines that describe an appropriate process (Matt. 18). The prophet Amos sets an example by balancing intercession for undeserving people with bold confrontation against those who repeatedly reject God’s will. The New Testament process eventually comes to the same point of confrontation and rejection if there is no repentance. This is a frightful circumstance to be in, yet both denominational leaders and congregations must discipline leaders who reject what God says.
Of course, even in this context, there is the hope that the ultimate step of rejection will bring transformation and renewal of fellowship. Rejection and dismissal of a leader through church discipline is not an attempt to exclude someone for life from the kingdom. If leaders repent, they are to be welcomed back. Although most biblical examples are not fully parallel to the process of church discipline we are discussing here, God did not totally reject Abram when he lied about his wife (Gen. 12), Moses when he murdered the Egyptian (Ex. 2), David when he had Uriah killed and slept with Bathsheba (2 Sam. 11–12), or Peter when he betrayed Christ (Luke 22:54–62).18
Each of those involved in the discipline process should also remember Paul’s words that “if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted” (Gal. 6:1). Confrontation of spiritual leaders is not easy, but the future vitality of the church is dependent on the preservation of a faithful witness to the authority of the Scriptures and each person’s submission to the God who speaks through them.
How should people handle opposition against them? Throughout the Old and New Testament are incidents where godly people are opposed or persecuted—for example, the Israelites in Egyptian slavery and the various attempts by the pharaoh to reduce their numbers (Ex. 1). When it comes to the oppression of spiritual leaders like Amos, one is reminded of attempts to kill Moses when the people heard the spies’ report of the giants in Palestine (Num. 14), Saul’s attempts to kill David (1 Sam. 18; 24), Jeremiah’s being beaten and rejected by other prophets and priests and their attempts to kill him (Jer. 20:2; 26; 28), the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7:54–60), and the many trials of Paul (Acts 13:50; 14:5, 19; 2 Cor. 11:24–27).
Opposition to God and his messengers is not a thing of the past. Hussein Qambar Ali, an Iranian convert to Christianity, faced the threat of death because he became an apostate from Islam. Sudanese Christians have been crucified, and a Filipino pastor leading an underground church in Saudi Arabia barely escaped execution.19 Muslim extremists in Egypt, Pakistan, Algeria, Sudan, and Bangladesh are particularly guilty of forcing their ideologies on governments and intimidating individuals with threats. Unfortunately, as W. Wong states, “There is a lack of recognition that Christians are still facing severe persecution in many places.”20
Amos 7:10–17 teaches that God does call people from their present line of work (Amos was a “second-career minister”) to deliver God’s words to people who need to be taught about him and warned of his impending action. These called people may face strong opposition to their teaching and suffer persecution. Paul recognized that “everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” (2 Tim. 3:12). When these times of opposition come, it will surprisingly often come from other religious leaders rather than pagans (cf. the Pharisees’ plots to kill Jesus, reflected in John 11:45–53; 15:18–25). When such conflicts come, God’s messengers will find great reassurance and comfort in their memories of God’s original calling to service, especially when their persecutors question the legitimacy of both their message and their call to ministry (Amos 7:12–14).
In times of conflict, God’s messengers must always go back to his promises for strength and use them as a basis for confronting opposition. In this process God’s messengers should not try to make things more acceptable to opponents by compromising his demands for purity and obedience. If people choose to reject God’s way, they will eventually suffer his judgment.
Although life-threatening persecution is not unusual in some countries, Christians in democratic countries by and large do not need to worry about severe persecution. Instead, they face situations more like that of Amos. Someone expresses an idea or belief, and sooner or later someone else disagrees. When these disagreements reach a certain level, a person can choose to go to a different church and find new friends (as Amaziah encourages Amos to go somewhere else). But Amos does not take the path of least resistance to avoid conflict, nor should we.
If differences of opinion are based on a misperception of a person’s motivations (Amaziah thought Amos was motivated by money), we must clarify any misunderstandings. One can also seize an opportunity to give a testimony concerning one’s personal faith and obedience to God and one’s strong commitment to God’s calling. Assuming the issue of conflict is not a peripheral point where legitimate differences of opinion should be permitted, a clear explanation of what God has said in Scripture must be provided (Amos reports to Amaziah what God has said). Finally, one should always “make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3) because there is only one body, one faith, and one Lord.
Nevertheless, as Amos and Paul found out, there are times when people must take a strong stand against those who reject true doctrine and who oppose what God is trying to accomplish. Each person should be aware that such confrontations (like confronting an alcoholic parent) may be difficult emotional experiences, but people should not let fear prevent them from taking responsibility to oppose the spiritual forces of evil in this world. This may not reduce persecution or conflict, but it will establish the truthfulness and authority of what God has said. It is the foundation of our faith, and it is worth fighting for.